Re: Is it just me or are instant swap services getting worse in 2025?
Let's just agree to disagree I guess if you really think everything's the user's fault. But you must have heard of FTX, QuadrigaCX, Cryptsy, and many others. There's fraud. There's mismanagement, lack of security, negligence, and the like, but, yeah, the users are the ones at fault.
I can understand some people such as traders losing money on an exchange, but for the rest not really. This goes against the basics of Bitcoin. Not your keys, not your coins. If you have kept coins on an exchange, then you have used Bitcoin wrongly. Harsh, but the reality. In a different but similar way you can imagine the following. One night you decide to leave the door to your house unlocked. Nothing happens. You decide to do it again because locking the door is annoying and takes precious time. Nothing happens for a great many nights. Then one night you get robbed, and you blame everything and everyone that you got robbed besides yourself. Do you understand taking responsibility now?I don't know if you're currently or used to be a developer, staff, part of the team, or whatever of an exchange, but I don't agree with your view. You'll probably stick to it. I'm not here to convince you otherwise, anyway. But I don't think it's fair; to be guaranteed that your funds are safe, for example, but were suddenly frozen for no reason at all.
Cases were filed, although most of the time, it isn't practical to do so considering how costly it is to really pursue a company based in the Bahamas or Seychelles for a mere $500 or $1,000 or $5,000.
I do not have anything to do with exchanges, and I hate KYC so you are entirely mistaken about me. I try not to be biased and try to evaluate things that I do not like in an objective way too. You can debate responsibility subjectively to some extent, but you can't subjectively debate the lack of competitors. Why have practically none of these lawsuits ever been won? This isn't just about swap services like ChainNow which I can give you points for being harder to sue. This kind of nightmare stories exist even in regards to the most regulated exchanges like Coinbase. Do you think it is hard to sue Coinbase? If the users are right about these claims, then they should be winning easily. Further, you are completely ignoring my core argument because it is an inconvenient truth. Cases were filed, although most of the time, it isn't practical to do so considering how costly it is to really pursue a company based in the Bahamas or Seychelles for a mere $500 or $1,000 or $5,000.
If it were possibly to make a very competitive, very transparent exchange or swap service, don't you think that someone would have made it already? Since competitors are not emerging to seize on these weaknesses, that means there is a solid reason why that is not happening.
If you believe there is no good reason for things to be this way, open your swap service and destroy the competition. What's happening is they're displaying that fancy "no-KYC" banner just to attract customers while enforcing it silently under the hood.
If a Swap Service doesn't have a choice but to enforce KYC requirement, they shouldn't advertise themselves as "no-KYC exchange" or at least mention it in their TOS that the user complied with.
An honest exchange should be transparent on what they're enforcing. (even though it's hard to find like a single line in the exchange's terms of service, that still counts)
The argument was not about this. The argument was whether shotgun KYC is scamming or whether swap services and exchanges are forced to do it like this. I argue the latter with various ways, many people just argue the former with weak reasons. I do agree with you though, it shouldn't be marketed like this and it is wrong. However, most marketing in altcoin land is a scam so you can call it business as usual. If a Swap Service doesn't have a choice but to enforce KYC requirement, they shouldn't advertise themselves as "no-KYC exchange" or at least mention it in their TOS that the user complied with.
An honest exchange should be transparent on what they're enforcing. (even though it's hard to find like a single line in the exchange's terms of service, that still counts)
- It's the user's fault if he didn't read the service's TOS, Privacy Policy or FAQs where it's stated the above.
- Or the service is a scam/honeypot/mismanaged if the user doesn't agreed to a TOS that they may enforce "ShotGun KYC".
Hi, @Satofan44
You’re both right in different ways: users should take responsibility for their own security (“not your keys, not your coins”), but it’s also true that many exchanges have failed due to fraud, mismanagement, or negligence, and blaming users alone ignores the real harm caused by these bad actors.